In a significant November 13, 2024 decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in Amazon.com Services LLC that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by requiring employees to attend anti-union meetings. The NLRB overruled its 1948 decision in Babcock & Wilcox Co., clarifying that such “captive-audience” meetings violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by coercing employees and interfering with their Section 7 rights to organize or refrain from union activity.

The NLRB emphasized that, while employers can hold meetings to express their views on unionization, employers must provide employees with reasonable notice of the meeting’s subject, inform them that attendance is voluntary, and ensure no disciplinary action is taken for non-attendance. Additionally, no attendance records can be kept.

The NLRB highlighted several reasons why “captive-audience” meetings violate the NLRA:

• They interfere with employees’ right to freely decide whether to engage in union discussions.
• They allow employers to surveil employees’ participation in union matters.
• The threat of discipline or discharge creates coercion, limiting employees’ ability to make free choices about unionization.

This decision will be applied prospectively to account for employers’ prior reliance on Babcock & Wilcox. The decision was joined by Members Prouty and Wilcox, with Member Kaplan dissenting.

This ruling is poised to be one of the most significant NLRB decisions of the Biden administration, as it curtails one of employers’ most effective tools for communicating the drawbacks of unionization to workers. This case merits further monitoring, as the Board’s decision may not be the end of the story. Amazon could choose not to comply with the Board’s order, potentially forcing the Board to file a petition for enforcement with the federal Court of Appeals. Alternatively, Amazon could challenge the Board’s decision by filing its own petition to set aside the order with the Court of Appeals.

Given the significant First Amendment issues at stake and the Supreme Court’s recent repudiation of the Chevron doctrine, this could well be a case where the Board’s interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act does not ultimately carry the day. Moreover, given Donald Trump’s victory in the November Presidential election, the composition of the Board is due to flip from a majority of Democratic appointees to a majority of Republican appointees. Recent changes in Board composition have led to the new Boards reversing decisions of their predecessors, even where those decisions were only a few years old. As such, this decision could be one that the new Board revisits, should the opportunity arise.